RESEARCH PAPERS

GENERAL WELL-BEING OF HIGHER SECONDARY STUDENTS

By

A.S. ARUL LAWRENCE

Assistant Professor, School of Education, Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai, India.

Date Received: 12/12/2016 Date Revised: 03/02/2017 Date Accepted: 09/03/2017

ABSTRACT
General well-being is the quality of life of a person/individual in terms of health, happiness and prosperity rather than
wealth. The present study aims to probe the General Well-being of Higher Secondary Students. In this normative survey
study, the investigator has selected a sample of 200 higher secondary school students who were studying 11th and 12th
standards from four different schools in Cheranmahadevi Educational District, Tirunelveli by convenient sampling
technique. General Well-Being Scale (GWBS) constructed and standardised by Kalia and Deswal (2011) was used for
collecting data. The collected data were analyzed by using SPSS Package. For analysis, the data mean, standard
deviation, t-test and ANOVA were employed as the statistical techniques. Findings show that higher secondary students
significantly differ in their general well-being in terms of gender, location of school, type of school, and nature of school.
They do not differ in their general well-being in terms of type of family.
Keywords: General Well-Being, General Wellness, Higher Secondary Students.

INTRODUCTION (Karatzias, et al., 2006). Other terms have been used,

The concept of well-being originated from positive
psychology. The focus of positive psychology is to study
the improvement in the lives of individuals. The term 'well-
being' is mostly used for specific variety of goodness, e.g.
living in a good environment being of worth for the world,
being able to cope with life, enjoying life, etc. Well-being
has been also defined as a dynamic state characterized
by a reasonable amount of harmony between individual's
abilities, needs and expectation, and environmental
demands of opportunities (Levi, 1987). Well-being is
connotative as a harmonious satisfaction of once desire
and goals (Checola, 1975). Shoben (1957) and Bremer
(1996) suggest that there are intricate relationships
among biological, social, emotional, and spiritual
ingredients which from footing for well-being.
General well-being as a construct refers to the
harmonious functioning of the physical as well as
psychological aspects of the personality, giving
satisfaction to the self and benefit to the society (Siwach,
2000). General Well-Being is defined as encompassing
people's cognitive and effective evaluations of their lives
interchangeably with the general well-being term,
included health (Emmons and King, 1988) and quality of
life (Wikipedia).
1. Review of Related Studies
Parmar (2016) found that there is a significant difference in
the general well-being among male and female students
in the field of performing arts. It means that the general
well-being of male students is better than that of female
students in the field of performing arts. Meena (2015)
found that there is no significant difference of general
well-being between arts and commerce students of rural
area and there no significant difference of general well-
being between arts and commerce students of urban
area of senior secondary schools. Another finding
indicates that there is significant difference of general
well-being of students of rural and urban area of senior
secondary schools. Maharishi & Kumar (2013) found that
emotional intelligence is not significantly related to
general well-being of government welfare residential
school children, there is no significant difference in
emotional intelligence and general well-being of

20 i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l

No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017
 RESEARCH PAPERS
students based on their gender of government welfare
residential school children. Baskaran, et al. (2013) found
that there is a significant difference in general well-being
of school students among different communities. Singh &
Udainiya (2009a) found that neither family type nor
gender had significant effect on the measure of well-
being. Mitra (2015) found that general well-being was
positively correlated with positive cognitive emotion
regulation, presence of meaning in life, and the 11 of the
12 ego functions. Tiwari & Ojha (2014) found that there is a
significant difference between boys and girls in their
general well-being. Gujral, et al. (2012) found that there is
a significant correlation between Emotional Intelligence
and general well-being. Karatzias, et al. (2006) found that
age and gender were not significantly associated with
general well-being. Karatzias (2006) found that there is a
positive association between age and well-being.
2. Need for the Study
Adolescence is a vital stage of physical and mental
growth of the human body and indicates the transitional
period from childhood to adulthood. It is characterized by
rapid changes in the overall aspects of the individual
personality such as physical, mental, emotional, social,
and moral facets. It is a time that requires attention,
protection and meeting of special needs of adolescents.
When needs are unmet during this phase, it affects the
individual, family, community, society, and nation at
large. Well-being is a concept that encompasses a well-
rounded, balanced, and comprehensive experience of
life. It includes health in social, physical, mental,
emotional, career, and spiritual domains (Wilner, 2011).
Feelings of well-being are fundamental to the overall
health of an individual, enabling them to successfully
overcome difficulties and achieve what they want out of
life. Past experiences, attitudes and outlook can all
impact well-being as can physical or emotional trauma
following specific incidents. Schools play a vital role in
promoting the intellectual, physical, social, emotional,
moral, spiritual and aesthetic development and well-
being of adolescents, and in ensuring the nation's
ongoing economic prosperity and social cohesion.
Children with learning and developmental disorders may
i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l
No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017
experience considerably more stress than typically
developing children and this can impact in their well-
being. Schooling should not just be about academic
outcomes, but that it is about well-being of the 'whole
child'. The second is that students who have higher levels
of well-being tend to have better cognitive outcomes at
school. Many students get discouraged and depressed
as their well-being is poor. Moreover, a person who enjoys
well-being is more focused, organized and oriented
towards their work in a positive approach. It focuses on
areas related to coping self, creative self, essential self,
physical self, and social self to determine how well a
student interact with and function within their
environment. Wellness contributes to academic
achievement through a quality, safe learning and working
environment. Therefore, the investigator tried to
investigate a study on the below title.
3. Operational Definition of the Key Terms
·General Well-Being is the quality of life of a
person/individual in terms of health, happiness, and
prosperity rather than wealth. In this study, the
investigator means the quality of higher secondary
schools students' life in the physical, emotional,
social, and school aspects.
·Higher Secondary Students refers to the students
studying the Higher Secondary Course (HSC), i.e., 11th
and 12th standards after the completion of their SSLC /
10th standard.
4. Objectives
·To find out whether there is any significant difference
between boys and girls in their general well-being and
its dimensions.
·To find out whether there is any significant difference
between rural and urban school students in their
general well-being and its dimensions.
·To find out whether there is any significant difference
among government, government aided, and self-
financing school students in their general well-being
and its dimensions.
·To find out whether there is any significant difference
between nuclear and joint family students in their
21
 RESEARCH PAPERS

general well-being and its dimensions. 7. Analysis of Data

·To find out whether there is any significant difference
among boys', girls' and co-education school students
in their general well-being and its dimensions.
5. Hypotheses
·H01: There is no significant difference between boys
and girls in their general well-being and its
dimensions.
·H02: There is no significant difference between rural
and urban school students in their general well-being
and its dimensions.
·H03: There is no significant difference among
government, government aided and self-financing
school students in their general well-being and its
dimensions.
·H04: There is no significant difference between
nuclear and joint family students in their general well-
being and its dimensions.
·H05: There is no significant difference among boys',
girls' and co-education school students in their
general well-being and its dimensions.
6. Methods and Procedures
In this normative survey study, the investigator has
selected a sample of 200 higher secondary school
·H01: There is no significant difference between boys
and girls in their general well-being and its dimensions.
It is inferred from Table 1 that, variable differed significantly
with respect to gender of higher secondary students
except the dimension of social well-being. Hence, the
formulated null hypothesis is rejected. Thus, there is a
significant difference between boys and girls in their
general well-being and its dimensions physical well-
being, emotional well-being, and school well-being.
·H02: There is no significant difference between rural
and urban school students in their general well-being and
its dimensions.
It is inferred from Table 2 that, variable differed significantly
with respect to location of school of higher secondary
students except the dimension of physical well-being and
social well-being. Hence, the formulated null hypothesis is
rejected. Thus, there is a significant difference between
rural and urban school students in their general well-being
and its dimensions physical well-being, emotional well-
being, and school well-being.
·H03: There is no significant difference among
Boys Girls
General Well-Being
(N = 96) (N = 104)
‘t’-Value
Mean SD Mean SD

students who were studying 11th and 12th standards from Physical Well-Being 42.13 6.720 40.22 5.811 2.148*

Emotional Well-Being 49.92 10.328 44.53 10.058 3.736**

four different schools in Cheranmahadevi Educational
Social Well-Being 66.34 10.745 64.34 11.026 1.302
District, Tirunelveli in the state of Tamil Nadu, India, by
School Well-Being 47.82 8.512 43.09 8.840 3.853**
convenient sampling technique. For collecting data,
Total 206.21 27.876 192.09 25.977 3.708**
General Well-Being Scale (GWBS) was used, which was
* - significant at 0.05 level **-Significant at 0.01 level
constructed and standardised by Kalia and Deswal
Table 1. Significance Difference between Boys and Girls in their
(2011). The scale consisted of 55 items represented in four General Well-being and its Dimensions
subscales: physical well-being, emotional well-being, Rural Urban
social well-being, and school well-being. It is a self- (N = 101) (N = 99)
General Well-Being ‘t’-Value
Mean SD Mean SD
reported five point scale included positive and negative
Physical Well-Being 41.83 6.295 40.42 6.299 1.580*
items ranging from 'strongly disagree', 'disagree',
Emotional Well-Being 5.36 10.064 42.79 9.149 6.297**
'undecided', 'agree', and 'strongly agree'. Keeping in view,
Social Well-Being 66.64 10.173 63.93 11.505 0.079
the objectives design of the study and the collected data
School Well-Being 48.61 7.871 42.04 8.865 5.548**
were analyzed by using SPSS Package. For analysis, the
Total 208.45 25.208 189.09 26.919 5.250**
data mean, standard deviation, t-test, and ANOVA were **- Significant at 0.01 level
employed as the statistical techniques. The analysed Table 2. Significance difference between rural and urban school
data were analysed and tabulated as below: students in their general well-being and its dimensions

22 i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l

No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017
 RESEARCH PAPERS

Type of School

Government Govt. Aided Self-finance Groups

General Well-Being (N = 71) (N = 65) (N = 64) F - value differed
(1) (2) (3) significantly
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Physical Well-Being 40.42 6.228 41.52 6.416 41.53 6.355 0.697 None

Emotional Well-Being 49.34 10.728 48.32 10.475 43.42 9.433 6.280** (1&3), (2&3)

Social Well-Being 63.39 9.991 67.14 11.422 65.55 11.178 2.043 (1&2)

School Well-Being 45.51 7.714 47.89 9.590 42.63 9.005 5.828** (1&3), (2&3)

Total 198.66 24.903 204.88 29.950 192.98 27.574 3.024** (2&3)

* - Significant at 0.05 level **-Significant at 0.01 level

Table 3. Significant Difference among Government, Government Aided and Self-financing School Students in their
General Well-being and its Dimensions

government, government aided, and self-financing
school students in their general well-being and its
dimensions.
It is inferred from Table 3 that, variable differed significantly
with respect to type of school of higher secondary
students except the dimension of physical well-being.
Hence, the formulated null hypothesis is rejected. Thus,
there is a significant difference among government,
government aided, and self-financing school students in
their general well-being and its dimensions emotional
Nuclear
(N = 149)
General Well-Being
Mean SD
well-being, social well-being and school well-being.
·H04: There is no significant difference between
nuclear and joint family students in their general well-
being and its dimensions.
It is inferred from Table 4 that, variable not differed
significantly with respect to type of family of higher
secondary students except the dimensions of physical
well-being and social well-being. Hence, the formulated
null hypothesis is accepted. Thus, there is no significant
difference between nuclear and joint family students in
Joint their general well-being and its dimensions emotional
(N = 51)
‘t’-Value
Mean SD
well-being and school well-being.

Physical Well-Being 41.68 6.034 39.53 6.906 2.120* ·H05: There is no significant difference among boys',
Emotional Well-Being 47.79 10.264 46.02 11.249 0.861 girls' and co-education school students in their general
Social Well-Being 66.25 10.392 62.53 11.986 2.119* well-being and its dimensions.
School Well-Being 45.49 8.587 44.98 10.134 0.349 It is inferred from Table 5 that, variable differed significantly
Total 200.85 26.732 193.06 30.073 1.740
with respect to nature of school of higher secondary
* - Significant at 0.05 level
students. Hence, the formulated null hypothesis is
Table 4. Significance Difference between Students from Nuclear
and Joint Family in their General Well-being and its Dimensions rejected. Thus, there is a significant difference among

Nature of School

Boys' Girls' Co-Education Groups

General Well-Being (N = 75) (N = 84) (N = 41) F - value differed
(1) (2) (3) significantly
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Physical Well-Being 38.95 6.022 43.19 5.840 40.93 6.555 9.748** (1&2), (2&3)

Emotional Well-Being 42.28 8.633 48.02 9.615 54.10 11.171 20.705** (1&2), (2&3), (1,3)

Social Well-Being 62.53 10.859 67.93 10.191 64.98 11.385 5.066* (1&2)

School Well-Being 42.36 8.496 46.61 9.287 48.29 7.747 7.657** (1&2), (1,3)

Total 185.99 24.545 205.76 26.963 208.29 26.591 14.847** (1&2), (1,3)

* - Significant at 0.05 level **-Significant at 0.01 level

Table 5. Significant Difference among Boys', Girls' and Co-education School Students in their General Well-being and its Dimensions

i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l

No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017 23
 RESEARCH PAPERS
boys', girls' and co-education school students in their
general well-being and its dimensions.
8. Findings and Discussion
There is a significant difference between boys and girls in
their general well-being and its dimensions such as
physical well-being, emotional well-being and school
well-being. When the mean scores are compared, boys
(M=206.21) are better than girls (M=192.09) in their
general well-being. This may be due to the fact that boys
have better physical self-concept than girls (Basque,
2009) and girls have the disorders stemming out from
looks. This finding affirms the findings of Deswal & Sahni
(2015), Zhang Yong, et al. (2015), Kakkar (2015) and
contradicts the findings of Karatzias, et al. (2006), Singh
and Udainiya (2009b), Maharishi and Kumar (2013),
Baskaran, et al. (2013), Bhosale & Patankar (2014) and
Vishal & Mahesh (2016).
There is a significant difference between rural and urban
school students in their general well-being and its
dimensions physical well-being, emotional well-being
and school well-being. When the mean scores are
compared, rural students (M=208.45) are better than
urban students (M=189.09) in their general well-being.
This may be due to the fact that rural students has the
access to avail natural resources and they have the
possibility to ensure sustainability of life that can lead to
secure, healthy, stress-free and happiest life. Moreover,
they are having the possibility to have cordial relationship
with others due to the social setup of villages. This finding
supports the findings of Deswal & Sahni (2015) and
Sharma (2015) and opposes the finding of Baskaran, et al.
(2013).
There is a significant difference among government,
government aided, and self-financing school students in
their general well-being and its dimensions emotional
well-being, social well-being and school well-being. On
comparing the mean scores, government aided school
(M=204.88) students are better than government
(M=198.66) and self-financing (192.98) school students.
This may be due to the fact that government school
students may lack infrastructural facilities such as toilet,
laboratory, classroom, etc., lack of participation in the co-
24 i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l
curricular (NSS, NCC, YRC, RRC, Nature Club, Sports,
Students Parliament, Exhibition, etc.), and extra-curricular
(educational tour, cultural events, etc.) activities and they
are having more freedom. On the other hand, self-
financing students even though got all the instructional
and infrastructural facilities, active participation in the co-
curricular, and extra-curricular activities; they are forced
to concentrate on their studies in order to get high marks
and they are always kept an eagle eye by the teachers
and parents. Furthermore, they are demanded to crack
the medical and engineering entrance examinations.
Simultaneously, the students who are studying in
government aided schools have all the facilities and have
the freedom to do whatever they think, which leads to a
happy and healthy life. This finding contravenes the
finding of Vishal & Mahesh (2016).
There is no significant difference between nuclear and
joint family students in their general well-being and its
dimensions emotional well-being and school well-being.
This finding corroborates the finding of Singh and Udainiya
(2009).
There is a significant difference among boys', girls' and co-
education school students in their general well-being and
its dimensions. On comparing the mean scores, the
students studying co-education (208.29) schools are
better than girls' (205.76) and boys' (185.99) schools. This
may be due to the fact that, co-education is the most
important all over the world because it brings healthy
interaction and competition between boys and girls and
helps to understand each other with confidence. It helps
to breakdown the misconceptions of each sex about the
other and provides an excellent foundation for the
development of realistic, meaningful, and long-lasting
relationships in their life. This finding supports the finding of
Maharishi and Kumar (2013).
Conclusion
From this study it is concluded that, higher secondary
students significantly differ in their general well-being in
terms of gender, location of school, type of school, and
nature of school. They do not differ in their general well-
being in terms of type of family. Girls are lower in their
general well-being than the boys. The students from rural
No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017
 RESEARCH PAPERS

area, government aided and co-education schools are References

better in their general well-being. According to Amato [1]. Amato, P.R., (1994). “Father-child relations, mother-
(1994), Young adults with low well-being may encounter child relations, and offspring psychological well-being in
lower levels of happiness, satisfaction, and self-esteem, early adulthood”. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 56,
while experiencing high levels of distress. Similarly, Flouri & No. 41, pp. 1031–1042.
Buchanan (2003) pointed out that adolescents who
[2]. Baskaran, U., Chinchu, C., Ganesh Kumar, J., and
possess low psychological well-being or psychological
Maharishi, R., (2013). “After-effects of inter-caste tension
distress may also exhibit characteristics of low levels of
as a form of violence against children – A triangulation
happiness and self-efficacy, along with high levels of
study ”. International Journal of Education and
depression. Hence, it is important that the well-being of
Psychological Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 66-72.
adolescence should be improved with the proper
Retrieved from http://ijepr.org/doc/V2_Is2_May13/ij12.pdf
strategies designed by both teachers and parents. In
[3]. Basque, (2009). “Boys have greater psychological
responding to the well-being needs of students,
well-being than girls, due to better physical self-concept,
education systems and school communities in many
study finds”. Basque Research. Retrieved from
parts of the world have adopted a health promotion focus
www.sciencedaily.com/ releases/2009/02/09020308161
in keeping with recommendations made by the World
8.htm
Health Organisation (WHO).
[4]. Bhosale, U.V., and Patankar, S.D., (2014). “General
This study has provided an insight of the general well-
well-being in adolescent boys and girls”. Golden
being of higher secondary students. It has been well
Research Thoughts, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 1-4.
demonstrated by the prior studies in this field, that a
[5]. Bremer, B., (1996). “Phylogenetic studies within
meaningful and purposeful life enhances the general
Rubiaceae and relationships to other families based on
well-being of persons/individual. With a better
molecular data”. Opera Botanica Belgica, Vol. 7, pp. 33-
understanding of general well-being within adolescents,
50.
various counselling or educational implications can be
derived for assisting adolescents to develop holistically in [6]. Checola, N.G., (1975). The Concept of Happiness
terms of body, mind, and spirit as they venture into the (Doctoral Dissertation, Michigan University (1974)), Bisstt.
world of adulthood. Abst International.

Limitations of the Study [7]. Deswal, Anita and Sahni, Madhu, (2015). “General
well-being in adolescents on the basis of gender and
·This study was limited to the four different schools in
locale”. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science
Cheranmahadevi Educational District, Tirunelveli,
and English Language, Vol. 2, No. 7, pp. 2001-2013.
Tamil Nadu.
Retrieved from http://www.srjis.com/
·The survey method was employed and the General
[8]. Emmons, R.A., and King, L.A., (1988). “Conflict among
Well-Being Scale (GWBS) by Kalia and Deswal was
personal surviving: Immediate and longterm implications
used to collect the data.
for psychological and physical well-being”. Journal of
·A sample of 200 higher secondary school students
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 6, pp.
who studying 11th and 12th standard were included in
1010-1018.
this study.
[9]. Flouri, E., and Buchanan, A., (2003). “The role of father
·The investigators used only the variable well-being in
involvement and mother involvement in adolescents'
the dimensions of physical, emotional, social and
psychological well-being”. British Journal of Social Work,
school well-being.
Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 399–406.
[10]. Gujral, H.K., Gupta, A. and Aneja, M., (2012).

i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l

No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017 25
 RESEARCH PAPERS
“Emotional intelligence - An important determinant of
well-being and employee behaviour: A study on young
professionals”. International Journal of Management, IT
and Engineering, Vol. 2, No. 8, pp. 322-339. Retrieved
from http://www.ijmra.us
[11]. Kakkar, Nidhi, (2015). “A study of academic
achievement of senior secondary school students in
relation to their general well-being”. Paripex-Indian
Journal of Research, Vol. 4, No. 12, pp. 123-125.
[12]. Kalia, K. Ashok and Deswal, Anita, (2011). Manual
for General Well-being Scale. India, Agra: National
Psychological Corporation.
[13]. Karatzias, A., Chouliara, Z., Power., K., and Swanson,
V., (2006). “Predicting general well-being from self-
esteem and affectivity: An exploratory study with Scottish
adolescents”. Quality of Life Research, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.
1143-1151. doi: 10.1007/s 11136-006-0064-2
[14]. Levi, L., (1987). “Fitting work to human capacities
and needs”. In Katme, et al. (Eds.), Improvements in
Contents and Organization of Work: Psychological
Factors at Work.
[15]. Maharishi, R., and Kumar, J. Ganesh, (2013).
“Influence of the Emotional intelligence on General well-
being of Government Welfare Residential School Children”.
IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 13, No.
6, pp. 42-45. Retrieved from www.iosrjournals .org
[16]. Mitra, S., (2015). “A study on the correlates of general
well-being”. My Research Journals, Vol. 6, No. 1. Retrieved
from http://www.myresearchjournals.com
[17]. Parmar, P., (2016). “General well-being of students
and professionals in the field of performing arts in relation
to gender and experience”. International Journal of
Indian Psychology, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 55-70. dip:18.01.147/
20160 401.
[18]. Sharma, M., (2015). “General well-being among
26 i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l
senior secondary school students”. ZENITH International
Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 5, No. 6, pp.
229-232. Retrieved from www.zenithresearch.org.in
[19]. Shoben, E.J., (1957). “Toward a concept of the
normal personality”. American Psychologist, Vol. 12, No.
4, pp. 183-189.
[20]. Singh, B., and Udainiya, R., (2009a). “Self-efficacy
and well-being of adolescents”. Journal of the Indian
Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp. 227-
232. Retrieved from http://medind.nic.in/jak/t09/i2/
jakt09i2p227.pdf
[21]. Singh, Bhupinder and Udainiya, Rakhi, (2009b).
“Self-efficacy and well-being of adolescents”. Journal of
the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, Vol. 35, No. 2,
pp. 227-232. Retrieved from http://medind.nic.in/jak/t09
/i2 /jakt09i2p227.pdf
[22]. Tiwari, M.K,. and Ojha, S., (2014). “Study of general
well-being and emotional maturity of adolescents”.
Indian Journal of Health and Wellbeing, Vol. 5, No. 5, pp.
565-569. Retrieved from http://www.i-scholar.in
[23]. Vishal P. Parmar and Mahesh D. Makwana, (2016). “A
Comparative Study of General well-being among the
Government and Non-Government Students”. Indian
Journal of Social Sciences and Literature Studies, Vol. 2,
No. 2, pp. 8-12. Retrieved from http://iacrpub.com
[24]. Wilner, J., (2011). “How to Improve Psychological
Well-Being”. Psych. Central. Retrieved from http://blogs.
psychcentral.com/positive-psychology/2011 /03/how-to-
improve-psychological-well-being/
[25]. Zhang Yong, Cheng Teng, Zhang Bei, Tang Pei, Cao
Yang, and Zhou Danhua, (2015). “Study on the
differences and influence factors of the general well-
being of the college students with left-behind
experience”. Education Journal, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp. 283-
289. doi: 10.11648/j.edu. 20150405.24
No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017
 RESEARCH PAPERS

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. A.S. Arul Lawrence is an Assistant Professor in the School of Education at Tamil Nadu Open University (TNOU), Chennai, India. He
has completed his M.Sc., in Zoology, M.Ed., M.Phil., and Ph.D. Degrees in Education at Manonmaniam Sundaranar University,
Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India and has qualified the UGC-NET in Education. He has more than 8 years of teaching experience in
conventional mode and 2+ years in Open and Distance Mode. He acted as Principal in Colleges of Education, Assistant
Research Co-ordinator in TNOU and is now the Liaison Officer of TNOU. He has received 2 awards and organized 4 International
Conferences and 2 National Seminars. He has presented more than 40 papers in both National and International Seminars &
Conferences. He has authored 2 Books and edited 6 Books at International level and published more than 35 research articles in
peer-reviewed Journals. He is meticulously guiding both M.Phil., and Ph.D. scholars. His areas of specialization are Cognitive
Psychology, Educational Technology, and Teaching of Biological Science.

i-manager’s Journal on Educational Psychology, Vol. 10 l

No. 3 l
November 2016 - January 2017 27